linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: add timeout in do_xfer_with

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250402-hidden-unyielding-carp-7ee32d@sudeepholla>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 11:59:47 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Matthew Bystrin <dev.mbstr@...il.com>
Cc: arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
	Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>, Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scmi: add timeout in
 do_xfer_with_response()

On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 01:42:54PM +0300, Matthew Bystrin wrote:
> Add timeout argument to do_xfer_with_response() with subsequent changes
> in corresponding drivers. To maintain backward compatibility use
> previous hardcoded timeout value.
> 
> According to SCMI specification [1] there is no defined timeout for
> delayed messages in the interface. While hardcoded 2 seconds timeout
> might be good enough for existing protocol drivers, moving it to the
> function argument may be useful for vendor-specific protocols with
> different timing needs.
> 

Please post this patch along with the vendor specific protocols mentioned
above and with the reasoning as why 2s is not sufficient.

Also instead of churning up existing users/usage, we can explore to had
one with this timeout as alternative if you present and convince the
validity of your use-case and the associated timing requirement.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep